Iraq

• 

  Janyete (Leave me alone) 组长 楼主 2010-06-29 10:33:07

  百度百科：伊拉克——http://baike.baidu.com/view/7692.htm

  删除 |

  赞 回应
• 

  Janyete (Leave me alone) 组长 楼主 2010-06-30 16:14:16

  Six years after Iraq invasion, Obama sets out his exit plan http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/27/obama-iraq-war-end-august-2010 Almost six years after the invasion of Iraq, the end is finally in sight for America's involvement in its longest and bloodiest conflict since Vietnam. Barack Obama yesterday set out a timetable that will see all US combat units out by summer next year and the remainder by the end of 2011. Obama said yesterday that "by any measure, this has already been a long war". It had cost the US 4,425 dead, divided the country and cost it friends abroad. For Iraq, the death toll is unknown, in the tens of thousands, victims of the war, a nationalist uprising, sectarian in-fighting and jihadists attracted by the US presence. Obama flew from Washington yesterday morning to Fort Lejeune, North Carolina, to deliver his speech in front of 8,000 marines. He told them it was going to be a speech with far-reaching consequences: "Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end." Of the 142,000 US troops in Iraq, between 92,000 and 107,000 are to leave by August next year. The mission at that point will change, from combat to one that deals primarily with training Iraqi forces, supporting the Iraqi government and engaging in counter-terrorism. His delivery contrasted with the premature celebrations of President George Bush (right) almost six years ago when, shortly after the invasion, he spoke on an aircraft carrier beneath the now infamous banner reading 'mission accomplished'. He had gone to North Carolina to bury the biggest and most divisive issue of the Bush era, the failed neo-conservative experiment to create a model Arab country that would be a beacon for the rest. He did that with the words: "Let me say this as plainly as I can - by August 31 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end." In doing so, Obama fulfilled one of the central pledges of his election campaign. He aimed his words at those at home who long ago lost faith in the war and at those Iraqis who do not believe the US will really ever leave. He hoped the US departure from Iraq would herald "a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East", changing the way the world sees the US, Most of Obama's speech was aimed at an American audience, in particular the armed services. He said they had completed their tasks with honour. And he spoke with sadness of an America that will take a long time to come to terms with the legacy of Iraq, of the names of the dead commemorated in town squares and highways and etched on the white stones at Arlington cemetery. But he also had words for the Iraqis, saying that the US had done its bit and now it was time for the Iraqis to take responsibility. In contrast with the model democracy the neocons had envisaged, Obama said he would have to settle for a less than perfect Iraq when the US pulled out. "We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathise with our adversaries. We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars,"he said. "America's men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future. Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it" To try to counter Iraqi suspicions that the US is intent on keeping bases in the country to safeguard oil supplies and influence the Iraqi government, Obama said: "So to the Iraqi people, let me be clear about America's intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources." The prospect of 50,000 staying, even if only for another year, produced dismay among the Democratic leadership in Congress. The speaker, Nancy Pelosi, briefed by Obama on Thursday night, protested:"I don't know what the justification is for ... the 50,000 troops in Iraq. I would think a third of that, maybe 15,000 or 20,000." But the plan was welcomed by Republicans, including John McCain, who had opposed early withdrawal."Overall it is a reasonable plan and one that can work and I support it," he said. The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, who had served in the post under Bush and was kept in office by Obama, introduced an element of doubt to the president's insistence that all US troops will be gone. Talking with reporters after the speech, Gates said he would like a "some very modest-sized presence for training and helping" Iraqi forces after 2011, but only if the Iraqi government requested this and there was no indication that it would. Many of the marines listening to Obama, and who responded with only polite applause, apart from when he promised a pay rise, are to be deployed in another and growing war, Afghanistan. Afghanistan nextMany of the troops in Iraq are to be re-deployed to Afghanistan. The US has 36,000 troops in Afghanistan but the situation is deteriorating fast, with the Taliban gaining control over large swathes of territory. In anticipation of more violence with the arrival of spring, Obama this month despatched 17,000 more troops, and is expected to send the same number again later this year. Marines, who regard themselves as purely combat units, had been pushing for transfer from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama wants other Nato countries to take a bigger share. If they don't more US troops could be Afghanistan-bound.

  删除 |

  赞 回应
• 

  Janyete (Leave me alone) 组长 楼主 2010-06-30 16:46:55

  IS OIL OR BIG BUSINESS AN UNDISCLOSED MOTIVE FOR THE WAR ON IRAQ? http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp EVIDENCE OF A SERIOUS CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OVER IRAQ There is substantial evidence that America's interest in Iraq is motivated by oil, not just national security. Is the U.S. government being open and honest about their reasons for declaring war on Iraq? Read the evience and decide for yourself. [ PLEASE SIGN PETITION FOR STATEMENT FROM U.S. GOVERNMENT ] PROOF - WAR ON IRAQ IS FOR OIL Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil. "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."[1] The decision for military action had nothing to do with 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction, Iraqi human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war. The only people who will benefit from the war on Iraq are the elite wealthy oil men who finance Bush's election campaigns, and people like Bush who have huge personal investments in the oil industry. Oil company profits have already increased by fifty percent this year because of the war, and the invasion hasn't even started yet! "Profits in the fourth quarter soared 50% to $4.09bn (£2.5bn), beating analyst expectations."[2] War-time propaganda tells you what you want to hear; that your politicians have noble motives for the war on Iraq. Before you choose what to believe, have you considered the facts[3] for yourself? SOURCES: [1] Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002. [2] BBC News (UK), "Oil prices lift ExxonMobil", 30 January 2003. [3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001. US VICE-PRESIDENT CHENEY SHARES OUT IRAQ'S OIL Halliburton, an oil services company based in Bush's home-state of Texas, which was formerly run by US Vice-President Dick Cheney, has already been awarded a contract by the US government to operate in post-war Iraq.[1] "Reports in the Wall Street Journal suggested the contracts could be worth as much as $900m."[2] Haliburton "has a history of government contracts" and will be a "leading beneficiary" of the war on Iraq. Mr Cheney should receive huge financial rewards for the war on Iraq through substantial investments in the corporation he once headed. Iraq is currently the world's second largest source of oil, but the majority of subterranean oil reserves have never been tapped. After the war, when US oil corporations have fully developed the oil industry's potential, Iraq is expected to become the largest single supply of oil on Earth. "The new oilfields, when developed, could produce up to eight million barrels a day within a few years - thus rivalling Saudi Arabia, the present kingpin of oil."[3] The world's largest oil corporations are lining-up to exploit what could be the world's greatest supply of oil, and the US government has ensured that companies owned and heavily invested in by America are first in the queue.[4] SOURCES [1] Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003. "THE company once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory." [2] BBC News (UK), "US firms vie to rebuild Iraq", 10 March 2003. "Aside from Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root, they include Bechtel, Fluor, Louis Berger and Parsons. All five are US-owned and headquartered." [3] Evening Standard, "Is this war all about oil?", 11 March 2003 (PM). "In the past few days the United States has brought unprecedented financial pressure on other members of the UN Security Council - particularly Russia, so far without success - to join the war on Iraq." [4] Evening Standard, "Giants see post-war oil bonanza", 10 March 2003. "President Saddam Hussein is believed to be sitting on reserves of at least 115bn barrels, the second-biggest in the world after Saudi Arabia." FURTHER READING BBC News, "Oil firms 'discuss Iraqi stake'", 12 March 2003. "Oil firms BP and Shell [both owned primarily by big investors in the US and the UK] have held discussions with the government over a possible stake in Iraq's oil reserves..." Washington Post (USA), "Companies Selected to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction", 11 March 2003. "The Bush administration, preparing what would be the most ambitious U.S. rebuilding project since the aftermath of World War II, expects in coming days to award a construction contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq, U.S. officials said yesterday." "A few U.S. construction giants -- including the Bechtel Group Inc., Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp. -- were invited to bid for the work..." BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001. "What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil." BBC News, "Dick Cheney: Leading hawk", 10 September 2002. "The vice president has also been deeply involved in the oil industry for much of his career." BBC News, "New Enron sleaze allegations", 8 October 2002. "The 'creative' accountancy of Arthur Andersen in Dick Cheney's firm Halliburton is now under official investigation." AMERICA SOLD SADDAM HUSSEIN HIS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION The US government is attempting to justify their plans for war on Iraq, the world's second largest source of oil, by accusing Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The US government has proclaimed that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. However, recently declassified official government documents reveal that Iraq was armed with weapons of mass destruction by the USA! SECRET DEAL The US Defence Secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, is a strong supporter of president Bush's plan to invade Iraq, yet a few years ago he personally helped to supply Iraq with biological and chemical weapons! Donald H. Rumsfeld attended a secret meeting with Saddam Hussein in Iraq on behalf of the US government in December 1983, and agreed to sell Iraq weapons of mass destruction and arranged a loan to give Saddam Hussein the money to buy them. At that time, Iraq was using weapons of mass destruction against its neighbours, and the US not only allowed this but actively supported it. IS AMERICA MORE DANGEROUS THAN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA? Would a war to disarm Iraq solve the true problem? Should we invade Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction? Or would it be more worthwhile to stop America supporting terrorism and rogue states? The US government supported Osama bin Laden during the cold war, and now they want to destroy al-Qaeda. But if we defeat Iraq and al-Qaeda, will it solve the problem or prevent such things from happening again? The US government supports terrorists dangerous regimes when it suits them. America profits from selling weapons, and then profits by charging interest on the loans which allowed the weapons to be purchased! American weapons are sometimes sold to dangerous regimes, and to both sides in some conflicts. The US government supported Iraq, now they want to disarm Iraq, but while some people make money, unfortunately many people die during both processes. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S SUSPICIOUS SILENCE: Why did Saddam Hussein keep this fact secret, when details of such terrible American hypocrisy could have been used as a powerful weapon in his propaganda war against the USA? What might have been revealed about the secret side of America's relationship with Iraq within the 8,500 pages that the US government removed from Iraq's 12,000 page weapons declaration before most UN security council members were allowed to see it? INVESTIGATING AMERICA'S TRUE MOTIVES FOR WAR WITH IRAQ: The US government's official reasons for wanting to invade Iraq have proved to be false, so we must consider other motives that have not been declared such as oil. PRIMARY SOURCE: "Washington Post" newspaper article (USA) Title: "U.S. had key role in Iraq build up" Author: Michael Dobbs Date: 30 Dec 2002 Page: front page Extracts: "Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds" "High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally." "Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an 'almost daily' basis in defiance of international conventions." "The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend.'" ... "A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague." SECONDARY SOURCE "Daily Mail" newspaper article (UK) Title: "Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'" Date: 31 December 2002 Author: William Lowther Page: front page Extract: "U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, it was revealed last night." TERTIARY SOURCE: USA Today Title: "U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons" Date: 30 September 2002. Extract: "Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq. "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show." FURTHER READING: BBC News, "Rumsfeld cautious on Iraqi compliance", 12 December 2002. BBC News, "Donald Rumsfeld: Tough and determined", 10 September 02. BBC News, "Bush: Iraq's 'day of reckoning' looms", 3 January 03. BRITISH NEWSPAPER SUGGESTS IRAQ WAR IS FOR OIL In today's front-page news, the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper highlighted the overwhelming evidence that the US government's plans for war are motivated by oil more than anything else.[1] However, the government has not yet informed the public that oil is a motive for the "war on terrorism". The newspaper also warned that America and her allies could face over 10 years of war. According to a Captain currently training US soldiers: "We must reckon with 30 per cent casualties in such combat". A General who served in the Gulf War has predicted that the invasion of Iraq that: "It will be a bloodbath."[2] America is preparing to plunge the world into an extremely serious military campaign at the end of January 2003[3], but has the US government been open and honest with the public about their reasons? Read the evidence and decide for yourself. SOURCES [1] Daily Mirror, "Why George Bush Jnr is hell-bent on war with Iraq", front-page, 6 January 2003. [2] Daily Mirror, "Our 10 year war", 6 January 2003. [3] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page. U.N. DECLARES 'NO CASE' FOR AMERICA'S WAR WITH IRAQ NO REASON FOR IRAQ WAR United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has admitted that there is "no basis" yet for the use of force against Iraq. "I don't see an argument for military action now" - Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General "We haven't found an iota of concealed material yet - UN weapons inspector [ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ] U.N. CONTRADICTS US ACCUSATIONS This contradicts the US government's claim that Iraq is in "material breach" of UN resolutions. The deliberate use of this term is significant, because a "material breach" would give the US legal power to invade Iraq. [ BBC News, "Bush to speak on Iraq 'violation'", 20 December 2002 ] TOP-SECRET AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE The US government claimed last year they possessed intelligence against Saddam Hussein and promised to share this with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. [ BBC News, "US agrees to share Iraq intelligence", 21 December 2002 ] However, the UN weapons inspectors have not yet seen any of the intelligence that the US and the UK governments claim to have. "We need intelligence reports if they exist" - UN weapons inspector [ BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002 ] VATICAN WARNS AMERICA THAT WAR ON IRAQ IS NOT JUSTIFED The Vatican has warned president Bush that a war against Iraq would be: "a war of aggression that cannot be justified" An official Catholic newspaper reports that this statement was made during a press-press conference by the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace at the headquarters of the Catholic church.[1] The American president has announced that the US military will be ready for war with Iraq by 27 January 2003.[2] SOURCES [1] The Universe, "Vatican condemns US determination to attack", 6 January 2003. [2] Washington Post newspaper, "Bush Tells Troops: Prepare For War", 4 January 2003, front page. DID THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BRIBE U.N. MEMBERS TO SUPPORT WAR ON IRAQ? UN support for Iraq war was "bought for a price" by US government. US intelligence effectively "bought" or "hired" the support of the United Nations Security Council for a war with Iraq, by offering them a share in the spoils of war. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have been guaranteed a stake in the profits from Iraq's oil, the world's second largest source, provided that they keep quiet about their objections to the war. The permanent members of the UN Security Council were the only people to see Iraq's complete weapons declaration before the US government removed 70% of it, leaving only 3,500 pages of the 12,000 page report. Extract from article in Washington Post newspaper: "A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition." "Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia." "The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad." "'It's pretty straightforward,' said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. 'France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.'" [ Washington Post, "In Iraq war scenario, oil is key issue", front-page, 15 September 2002 ] AMERICA REMOVED 70% OF IRAQ'S WEAPONS DECLARATION! Iraq produced a 12,500 page weapons declaration for United Nations, but the American government removed 8,500 pages of the report before the rest of the world was allowed to see it! 70 per cent of the Iraqi weapons report for the UN was: "removed for the version given to non-permanent members, leaving a document of about 3,500 pages." [ BBC News, "'Little new' in Iraq declaration", 19 December 2002 ] America's decision to withhold all but 3,500 pages of Iraq's 12,500 page weapons declaration is a serious and deliberate attempt to conceal important facts in a serious international crisis, and demonstrates the American government's contempt for the rest of the world. America and United Nations have lied to Iraq and deceived the world. They forced Iraq to produce a weapons declaration and pretended that the report was for the UN. In reality the original report went directly to US intelligence, who immediately distributed it among America's closest allies. More than two thirds of the report was hidden before the rest of the UN security council were allowed to see it. Do you know the whole truth about the Bush government's motives for war with Iraq? READ THE FACTS before you support the war with Iraq; before you spend your taxes on the war, and before you or your friends and family are sent to die in the war. U.S. MILITARY WILL CAPTURE IRAQ'S OIL FIELDS FIRST The Council on Foreign Relations has issued advice to the American government in which a "key recommendation" is to ensure the availability of Iraq's oil after the war: "ensuring that the U.S. military has the requisite information to identify the assets that could, if severely damaged or destroyed during military hostilities, substantially delay resumption of the Iraqi oil export program" [ CFR, Guiding Principles for Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq", December 2002. ] Is the priority of an American invasion of Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil, the world's second largest supply? UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN WILL ATTACK IRAQ: GOOD NEWS FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY The USA and Britain are poised to invade Iraq and replace the existing national government with a new West-controlled government. Suspicion that the true motivation for the war on terror is created by the massive arms and oil industries of the West. Did oil influence America's decision to attack Iraq? Read the evidence below and decide for yourself. The U.S. government acknowledges that America will benefit from taking control of Iraq's oil production, but they have not yet stated whether or not oil influenced their decision to invade. When any nation declares war on another it is essential that they are open and honest about their reasons. The U.S. Government and their Energy Information Administration know that Iraq is the second greatest source of oil on earth. Could this be an undeclared motive for a military conquest of Iraq? "Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of gas." [ US Government's Country Analysis Brief on Iraq, December 1999. ] "No matter what decision the president makes [on Iraq], the United States will always be better off with a policy that provides more energy independence" (Ari Fleischer, White House spokesman) [ Miami Herald (from Reuters), "White House: No Link Between Iraq Policy, Oil Price", 6 September 2002 ] A new war in the Middle-East will have disastrous effects throughout the world, while the only guaranteed benefits will go to oil and weapons companies and their share-holders. The oil industry is certain to raise oil prices and increase their profits as supplies become more scarce. Many countries will spend more on defence as the war destabilises regional and international peace. The U.S. and British governments claim that the reason for making war against Iraq is to prevent them from possessing weapons of mass destruction. There are serious doubts throughout the international community, however, about whether or not an attack of Iraq would be justified. Furthermore, a pre-emptive attack on Iraq would undoubtedly be illegal under international law, which clearly states that military action is not allowed except in defence. U.S. President George W. Bush notified the United Nations on 12 September 2002, an emotive date, that America would attack Iraq unless they "immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction." War therefore seems inevitable because Iraq cannot decommission weapons which it says do not exist. In fact, America began planning the military conquest of Iraq at least as early as July 2002.. In a historic speech to the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad on 8 September 2002, a senior United Nations weapons representative in Iraq voiced serious doubts that there is any justification whatsoever for an attack against Iraq. Scott Ritter, who resigned from the U.N. weapons inspection team in 1998, explained to Iraq's government that America's case for war against Iraq was "built upon fear and ignorance, as opposed to the reality of truth and fact." He pointed out that Iraq had no part in the attacks against America on September 11th, "and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamentalist extremism that characterises those who attacked the United States on that horrible day." Most importantly, the former senior U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq authoritatively stated that Iraq does not pose the threat alleged by the U.S. and Britain, declaring that "Iraq has not been shown to possess weapons of mass destruction." "The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders." [ BBC News, "Scott Ritter addresses Iraqi parliament", 8 September 2002 ] There is too much at stake for us to enter into war without good reason. Military action could make things worse for the West and not better. Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter has warned that an attack on Iraq will have disastrous consequences for peace and security in the Middle East and is likely to aggravate increased support for future attacks on America. It is certain that the war will damage Western economies, triggering a substantial increase in oil prices until the allies seize control of Iraq's abundant oil fields. CIA SAY IRAQ IS NOT A THREAT TO AMERICA "President George Bush's attempt to maintain public support for military action against Iraq has taken a fresh blow from an unexpected quarter, with the publication of a letter from the CIA stating that while Saddam Hussein poses little threat to America" [ The Guardian newspaper (UK), "CIA in blow to Bush attack plans", 10 October 2002 ] [ CATO Institute, "Declassified CIA Report Undercuts Bush's Desire to Invade Iraq", 14 October 2002. The Central Intelligence Agency, America's national security service, has officially declared that Iraq does not pose a threat to the West. In fact, the CIA has warned that a U.S. attack on Iraq will actually cause a greater threat to American national security. This news seriously undermines President George W. Bush's claim that a military conquest of Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil, is justified by national security interests. Why does Bush's U.S. government suddenly want to attack Iraq if the country is not a threat? AMERICA PLANNED TO CONQUER IRAQ TO SEIZE THEIR OIL MONTHS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11. A U.S. government report from before September 11 proves that America was already planning a military conquest of Iraq. The war is now almost impossible to justify as a "war on terrorism". "As the United States prepares for war with Iraq, a report commissioned early in George Bush's presidency has surfaced, showing that the US knew it was running out of oil and foreshadowing the possible need for military intervention to secure supplies." [ Sidney Morning Herald, "Oil has always been top of Bush's foreign-policy agenda", 7 October 2002. ] This new evidence adds credibility to widespread fears that oil and emperialism is the reason for the war on terror, and not national security is the "Five months before September 11, the US advocated using force against Iraq to secure control of its oil." [ Sunday Herald, "The West's battle for oil", 6 October 2002. ] Is it a conflict of interests that most people in Bush's U.S. government have substantial personal financial interests in the oil industry? "What makes the new Bush administration different from previous wealthy cabinets is that so many of the officials have links to the same industry - oil." [ BBC News, "Analysis: Oil and the Bush cabinet", 29 January 2001. ] "Bush has long had close links with the energy business. Not only did President Bush work in the oil business, so did the Vice-President and two other members of his cabinet. Energy companies contributed generously to the Bush campaign, sometimes by unorthodox means." [ BBC Report, "The Toxic Texan", 18 October 2001. ] WAR ON IRAQ OFFICIALLY DECLARED ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW The American and British governments have declared their plans to use military action to force a "regime change" in Iraq. Unfortunately, in international law, this is an unlawful reason for war. [ BBC News, "US and UK call for Iraq 'change'", 6 April 2002 ] "Two of Britain's most senior legal figures have warned Prime Minister Tony Blair that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach international law..." [ Reuters news service, 7 October 2002. ] Sydney Morning Herald, "US may charge Saddam with war crimes", 8 October 2002. The British Attourney General and Solicitor General have confirmed to the U.K. Government that an attack on Iraq would be illegal under international law. "Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has been warned by his attorney-general that military action against Iraq to force a regime change would breach international law. "The clear advice from Lord Goldsmith and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general, places the prime minister in a potentially 'impossible position', according to legal experts." [ Financial Times newspaper, October 2002. ] Will Britain and America respect international law, or is the capture of the world's second largest oil supply too tempting to resist?

  删除 |

  赞 回应

你的回应

回应请先 登录 , 或 注册